All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. And, Mr. Clarke, where would you like Dr. Cotton?
Dr. Cotton, I'm going to ask you to take one more look at the first single genetic marker film that involved a probe ms1 that's already been marked as People's exhibit 257-B as in boy.
Okay. Directing your attention again at this point just to the boot stain, item no. 78, did this genetic marker produce any banding results?
This band right here, second one here, a third one here (Indicating). There is a fourth one on the film and I can't distinguish where it is on the screen. Now, on the film, I know from reviewing all of the data that it's consistent with the lower band in Mr. Goldman's pattern, but I don't really want to try to put an arrow to it on the screen because frankly I can't see it on the screen.
Okay. Let's break that up a little bit. When you say that there's a fourth band there, how do you know that?
Well, I just refreshed my recollections by looking at the film before they put it on the elmo, and I know from reviewing the data in the case folder that this--this pattern on this film was analyzed separately on the computer imaging system as well, and not only--I mean, I see a band there as do--did the other person who did the work, but--
Now, let me ask you about that a little bit. When the computer imaging system picks out a band, but apparently that band was what? Would you call it faint, very weak or what?
It's faint. I don't--it's sort of odd because the other faint bands--I mean, for example, the faint band in item 52, even on the screen, I can pretty much pick out where it is. However, I can't do that on the screen for the fourth band in item 78 although it's not difficult to see on the film.
All right. Now, just referring to the three arrows that you've placed under the boot stain, no. 78, can you make any statements about possible contributors of DNA from the three known samples from Mr. Simpson, Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman?
Now, by any of the three, you're referring to Mr. Simpson, Nicole Brown or Ron Goldman?
Now, that opinion or that statement that you can't exclude anyone, is that limited to just the information on this single genetic marker alone?
That's limited--if you only had this as your information and you didn't have any other information, that's the conclusion I would come to based on this film by itself.
By looking at all of the films that relate to this particular evidence item, is Mr. Simpson included or excluded?
So he's not a potential donor of the DNA that you were able to determine from the boot stain?
Okay. Now, turning to the other two potential donors based on this test or this single genetic marker, in particular, Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, can you describe for us what it is about them that makes them potential donors?
The top band in item 78 and the lower band in item 78 that we can see here on the screen are consistent with the two bands in Nicole Brown. Woops. The middle band of the three that we can see on the screen is consistent with the upper band in Ronald Goldman. The band that I can't easily identify for you on the screen is in this vicinity down here (Indicating), and based on all of the sizing data, is consistent with this lower band, but I can't demonstrate it to you on the screen.
Based on the results that you were able to determine from this single genetic marker film as well as the cocktail that was immediately shown before this one, are there any conclusions just up to the point of you having looked at these two films about donors to the boot stain, no. 78?
The conclusions based on the two would be essentially similar to the conclusions based on the one. Nicole Brown is consistent with being a donor and it's inconclusive at this point whether or not Ronald Goldman is a donor.
There's still not enough information to exclude him and there's not really a sufficient amount of information to include him as a donor.
Is this a situation in which you would, if possible, like to have more information?
Referring you, if I could, Dr. Cotton, now to what's been previously marked exhibit 257-C, is that the same film that you described earlier involving the probe or the genetic marker ms31?
Now, referring you, Dr. Cotton, to this second single genetic marker ms31, were banding patterns developed on again the boot stain?
There are two bands using this probe ms31 from the boot stain, and I'm marking them with the arrows, and there are no additional bands in that lane that are visible. Just these two.
First of all, with respect to Mr. Simpson, from this film alone, can you exclude him as a possible donor of either of the bands that appear in the lane involving the boot?
Does that mean then that he is excluded in total from having donated any DNA on the boot stain?
Well, neither of them are excluded. Nicole Brown has two bands that are--I'm going to--wait a minute. How should I do this? She has two bands, and they are in a similar position to the two bands that you see from item 78. Ronald Goldman has a single band with this probe. It is in virtually the same position as a single band--or sorry--the lower band in Nicole Brown's pattern. It's--there is a band here in this position, but if he's made--if there's any contribution from--in item 78 from a band that's consistent with Mr. Goldberg, you couldn't tell because it overlaps with the two bands that are consistent with Nicole Brown. So this doesn't provide you any additional information as to whether there's anything else in 78 that's consistent with Mr. Goldberg. You just couldn't tell from this information.
All right. First of all, that one arrow that's pointed to the right, unlike the direction of the other three arrows, did you use that direction simply so you wouldn't overlap the arrow over the band in Mr. Goldman's lane?
No. That's right. It would have just covered the band that I was about to talk about.
Now, following the cocktail x-ray film and then these now two individual genetic markers, as far as your preliminary conclusion as to Nicole Brown being a potential donor of the DNA on the boot stain, is that still true after this second marker?
Is it also still true that with respect to Mr. Goldberg, the results are inconclusive?
Dr. Cotton, showing you now the ms43 genetic marker film, first of all, is there information or banding patterns provided by the boot stain, no. 78?
There's two bands still in item 78, and I'm marking them with the arrows, and they are similar in position to the two brands--bands from Nicole Brown.
Now, first of all, as far as Mr. Simpson is concerned, is he excluded at this marker as well as a donor of DNA from the boot stain?
Turning to Nicole Brown, you just indicated with two arrows bands that are in the same relative position as those for the boot stain?
I'm sorry. Did one of your arrows on Nicole Brown cover one of Mr. Goldman's bands?
Now, as far as Mr. Goldberg is concerned, are there banding patterns in his sample? Could you just describe where they are?
Now, what about the presence of any bands in any similar location in the boot stain itself?
There really is not--are not any other additional bands in the boot stain that can be clearly seen. So we have no additional information about whether he's included or excluded.
As a result of this genetic marker, is Nicole Brown still a possible donor of the DNA found on the boot stain?
There haven't been--of the--if you look in the boot stain and you look at the few bands that we've seen that are not consistent with Nicole Brown, they are consistent with Mr. Goldman's. So-- but they're not very many of them. So basically you're not coming to any strong conclusion thus far.
And would the results as far as he's concerned and this stain still remain inconclusive?
Okay. Could we then print this? And could you take the arrow, Dr. Cotton, and move it up high?
Again turning your attention to what's previously been marked as 257-F, is that the film related to the marker g3 that you described earlier?
All right. And again, Dr. Cotton, pointing your--directing your attention to banding patterns that exist in the boot stain, could you indicate any bands that are present?
With this probe and based on just looking at the film, there are three bands, two that are darker and a single one that is quite light, but is right here (Indicating).
So in other words, you have now shown with three different arrows what appear to be two bands of--at least in comparison to the bottom arrow, two bands of greater intensity and one you've described as lighter than the intensity of the first other below those first two?
Now, as far as this particular genetic marker is concerned, what statement if any can you make about the possibility that Nicole Brown and/or Ronald Goldman could have contributed the DNA found on this--I'm sorry--found on the boot stain at this marker?
Nicole Brown could have been a contributor and the results with regard to Ronald Goldman are still inconclusive. The single band here that's lighter (Indicating) is consistent with his upper band. There is no lower band that we can see. And this second--secondary pattern, that is the light bands that we've seen all along, if there were a band down here, we would--we may or may not be able to see it. So essentially, with regard to Ronald Goldman, the results were still inconclusive. With regard to Nicole Simpson, she's--Nicole Brown Simpson, she's still included.
Incidentally, Dr. Cotton, before we leave this particular film, is there any statement you can make about Mr. Simpson's banding pattern and the boot stain?
Incidentally, you've described the fact that he was excluded as a donor on at least one earlier genetic marker. Does it make any difference if you are excluded at one genetic marker or all the genetic markers that you look at?
If you were asking a question about paternity, it would. If you're comparing two DNA samples and you're asking if they could be from the same person, then you would normally expect to have multiple exclusions unless the people were related. In this case, there are multiple exclusions. So there's no doubt that he's excluded as being a donor to the DNA in item 78.
All right. And lastly, referring to the fifth genetic marker that you've described with regard to the Bundy stain and foyer stains, that is ynh24?
Your Honor, referring to People's exhibit 257-G. I would like to show that to the witness as well.
Lastly, Dr. Cotton, referring--referring you to this last genetic marker, ynh24, are there any banding patterns on this x-ray film with regard to the boot stain?
With regard to the individuals, that is the three individuals, the known samples, can you make any statement first of all about Mr. Simpson as being a possible donor of the DNA on the boot stain?
She is included. She has two bands also in a similar position to the ones in the boot stain.
There are no additional bands with this probe from the boot stain. So there's no information, that is, he doesn't seem to be there based on this probe alone, and based on the compilation of the data, it doesn't add anything to what we've already seen.
So with respect to Mr. Goldberg, after having reviewed the cocktail x-ray as well as the five individual genetic marker locations, what statement can you ultimately make about Mr. Goldberg and the stain material from the boot?
Based on all of the information together, he cannot be definitively excluded, but he cannot be definitively included either. So the results regarding Mr. Goldberg and item 78 are inconclusive.
KEY QUOTEBased on all of the films, she is included based on the computer imaging data. The bands that are consistent with Nicole Brown in item 78 do match the bands in the known sample from Nicole Brown.
From the five different--and actually I'm sorry. Let me ask that again. But if we could first--and if you would move that arrow up a little hire, and then we'll print this image. Your Honor, may this be marked 257-G(2)?
As far as Nicole Brown is concerned--and I believe you just stated that she in fact could be a donor of the stained material from the boot?
What's that based on? In other words, how many genetic markers and how many bands?
As far as Mr. Goldberg is concerned, how many bands were you able to detect--well, let me rephrase that. Other than the 10 bands from Nicole Brown, how many additional bands were you able to determine existed in this stain?
Altogether, between the cocktail and the other probes, there are 12. There are 11 in the cocktail and there is one band on ms1 that you can see that does not show up in the cocktail. So that brings it to a total of 12 bands altogether.
And what about when you add in that fifth genetic marker ynh24? Does that add any more bands to the total number that you detected?
Yes. Umm, okay. We have 11 in the cocktail, we have an additional one in ms1 that you don't see in the cocktail and then from ynh24. So that's 12. And from ynh24, we have two more. So that brings it to a total of 14.
But your results overall in evaluating the entire results as far as he is concerned are what?
They're inconclusive because we can't--we only have four bands and he has nine. So we only have a partial bit of information, and we don't know what the other-- we know that four bands is only part of somebody's pattern given the number of probes we've looked at, and we don't know what the other bands in that pattern look like. So we can't say anything further.
Your Honor, in light of the witness' answer, I move to strike that portion of the answer because it was speculative as to it being inconclusive.
Incidentally, as far as children are concerned--and let's take, for instance, either the Bundy stain, item 52, or the foyer stain, item 12. Do you recall your testimony about those two items?
What about children of an individual? Is children's DNA the same or different from the parents?
Because the child is only going to inherit half of the DNA from each parent. You know, this is a lot easier to do on a diagram than verbally.
I think we did a little bit, your Honor. I'd like to go into it in a little more detail.
It won't be the same. The child's DNA will not be the same as the parents' DNA. And there--actually I should--should make--
Do you have, in terms of your RFLP testing in this case, one further set of autorads?
Your Honor, with the Court's permission, I would like to show just one of the photographs of the sock that's been previously marked as an exhibit.
All right. Dr. Cotton, do you have with you the films from your testing of the sock?
And could you hand them to me? And with the Court's permission, we will have you describe the same process. First of all, is that the only evidence item on these particular films?
On these films, do they also include the same known samples from the three parties in this case?
Dr. Cotton, showing you what will be marked People's exhibit 258-A, can you just tell us what that is?
This is the cocktail film that has the three known samples on it and the DNA that was obtained from item 13, which is the sock.
Now, Dr. Cotton, referring you to now what's on the projection screen, you have described that as the cocktail x-ray film for the evidence item number 13, which is the sock?
Now, with regard to the various controls--and I believe you've described the controls are the boxed lanes at the very top--are those the same types of controls or the same controls as you've described earlier with regard to the other evidence items?
Yes, they are, except that there's no k562 cell line DNA on this film. There is the normal TDS DNA on this film.
I don't actually know why it wasn't loaded on this film. There--it may have been just to make sure there was plenty of space between each sample. It doesn't make any difference in the analysis whether it's there or not there.
Because we don't have standard sizes for those bands yet, we're not using it officially as a standard. One of the reasons we're putting it on films is so that we can accumulate sizes for that DNA. So our standard that we want to check very closely is the TDS, and that serves the function of having a known human DNA on this gel.
From looking at this particular x-ray film, does it appear that this test worked properly?
All right. Could you with the pointer again then indicate the location of those banding patterns in the sock.
Now, you have indicated with eight arrows what appear to be eight bands; is that correct?
It looks like there is one band and then a little lower, two bands fairly close together?
Now, can you examine the banding patterns from Nicole Brown, Ron Goldman as well as Mr. Simpson, and first of all, can you tell us if any individuals on this particular film are excluded as possible donors of that DNA?
Mr. Simpson's known sample is in this lane, and he is excluded. The bands in the socks do not line up with the bands in Mr. Simpson's pattern. There's only one down here (Indicating).
Mr. Goldberg could not have donated the DNA on the sock. That pattern is clearly different than the pattern on the sock.
Nicole Brown is not excluded. She has eight bands and they are consistent and in similar positions to the DNA bands that are found on the sock.
And could you use the arrow again to show us the location of her bands on this particular film?
As a result of your interpretation of this initial autorad, this film, this cocktail film, what conclusions if any could you reach?
The conclusions that you can reach from this film are that Mr. Simpson and Mr. Goldberg could not have been the donor of the DNA found on the sock and Nicole Brown could be the donor of the DNA found on the sock.
As far as the material that you received in the laboratory--and I'm referring to no. 13, the sock--what did you actually receive?
We received DNA that had been extracted by the laboratory for the California Department of Justice.
All right. What was the next step in this process of analyzing this particular evidence item?
Next step is the same as the set of films we saw before, and that is to go through with each probe one at a time and identify the bands that are seen individually with each--with each probe.
And I'm sorry. I don't believe I asked if we could print the current image, but I'm--
With regard--before we do that, while this is still on the screen, Dr. Cotton, as far as these eight bands that are in the sock DNA itself, do they match the eight bands from Nicole Brown?
Now, turning your attention, if I can, to what will be exhibit 258-B, could you examine that particular x-ray?
Dr. Cotton, referring you to 258-B, that x-ray film is from your testing at what genetic marker?
Now, starting with Mr. Simpson's sample off to the left, could he have been a donor of the DNA found at those two bands--I'm sorry--the DNA found at this genetic marker as reflected by those two bands you've just marked or is he excluded?
Well, he has two bands also, but they are not in the same position as the two bands seen in the DNA from the sock.
She has two bands also, and they are in the same positions as the two bands shown in the sock or seen in the sock.
Is it the case then that at this genetic marker and with regard to the two bands found in the sock, Nicole Brown matches those two bands?
Now, Dr. Cotton, on the board, do you have this particular film that you just described as the ms31 single genetic marker film?
And with regard to this genetic marker, did the sock DNA produce any banding patterns?
As far as Mr. Simpson is concerned, could he have been the donor of the blood on that sock?
He has two bands. They are right here (Indicating) close together in a different position from the bands on the sock. So he could not have been the donor of the DNA on the sock.
Ron Goldman has a single band and it is in a similar position to the lower band in the sock. If you had only this film by itself, you couldn't make a conclusion either way, whether he was a contributor--based on the totality, he's not. But on this--on this film alone, you couldn't make a conclusion.
Now, what do you mean, based on the totality that he couldn't be--I'm sorry--that he is excluded?
Based on the cocktail and all of the additional films, he's clearly excluded. Based on this film alone, if this was all you had, you wouldn't be able to exclude him.
She is not excluded either. She has two DNA bands and they are marked by the arrows and in a similar position to the DNA bands seen in the sock.
Now, at this point, you have examined the cocktail and two of these single genetic marker films?
And I would ask that another film be marked as 258-D, which I believe to be ms43 for this same sample.
Dr. Cotton, showing you what's been marked or will be marked 258-D, is that in fact the film for typing of the sock at the ms43 genetic marker?
And now that it appears on the screen, were there in fact DNA patterns produced from the sock DNA as well as the same three individuals we've discussed earlier?
All right. Could you demonstrate the location of the banding patterns from the sock itself?
Let's look first at Mr. Simpson again off to the left. What statement or what conclusion can you make about whether or not that is his DNA in the sock?
He has two bands. They are not in the same positions as the DNA bands from the sock or from the DNA found on the sock and--the d--the sample found on the sock. So he is excluded as being a donor of the DNA that was extracted from the sock.
Now, if you would turn your attention off to the right to Mr. Goldberg, and as far as his DNA, what conclusions can you reach at this genetic marker?
He has also two bands, one up at the top here, one down towards the center (Indicating). His top band is similar in position to the upper band in the DNA from the sock, but the lower band is not. And, therefore, he is excluded as being a donor of the DNA extracted from the sock.
She has two bands also with this probe. They are in similar positions to the bands from item 13, which is the sock, and she cannot be excluded.
All right. Could you demonstrate with the pointer by placing arrows again at her banding patterns?
All right. Maybe if you could just move the arrow itself up at the top, and we'll ask that this be printed.
At this point, Dr. Cotton, as a result of the cocktail film that is that portion of the test as well as now three genetic markers, does Nicole Brown still match the DNA found in the sock?
All right. Again, each of the single genetic marker films that you've been describing about the sock, they are all taken from the same membrane that the cocktail was?
And was it done in this same process that you described with the earlier evidence samples where you simply remove the probes from one genetic marker, apply new ones and then look at that particular portion of the DNA molecule to determine if samples match or don't match?
Okay. Shifting your attention now to g3, what's on the projector at the moment, and in particular, with regard to the sock, can you describe any banding patterns that were present on the sock?
Yes. There is a banding pattern. It has two bands, and I'm marking them with the arrows (Indicating.
This is probe g3, and I see one band in Mr. Sim--Simpson here. I believe he actually has another band in g3. Doesn't show up on this film. It would have to be identified on the cocktail. So--at least, in looking at the film just a moment ago, I don't see it. So he has a single band that we can see on this film alone. It's not consistent with the sock and he's excluded as a donor of the DNA on the sock.
Now, I believe you mentioned a band that you can't see on the g3 probe itself. Did you mention you could see it elsewhere?
I refer you to what's been marked People's exhibit 258-A. Is that the cocktail for this particular sample?
And with regard to that band, have you had an opportunity to look at the cocktail?
His pattern on this cocktail is exact--is like the pattern on the other cocktail, and he has one band that's almost down at the bottom of the gel near the last molecular weight marker. And I can see it clearly on this cocktail, and from the individual films, one can deduce that that's the second g3 band.
Now, Mr. Simpson is excluded at a number of different probes from having been the donor of this DNA found on the sock; is that right?
Turning to Mr. Goldman, what statement if any can you make about whether or not he could have been the donor of the DNA from the sock?
He also has one band that I can see. I believe Mr. Goldman also has in the cocktail a band--a small band down here (Indicating). You can't see it on this film. However, he's--his band is not anywhere near the vicinity of the bands from the sock, and he is also excluded as a donor of the DNA that was extracted from the sock.
She has two bands. They are in similar positions to the bands in the sock and she is not excluded.
And if you would move the arrow on up, we will ask that this be printed as well. I believe that would be 258-E(1), your Honor.
All right. And finally, referring you to what appears to be the last film, which is marked ynh24, would that be the fifth genetic marker that the sock was tested at?
Showing you this last film, is this indeed film from your testing at the location or the genetic marker ynh24 of again the sock?
Now, Dr. Cotton, with respect to the known samples--and let's start with Mr. Simpson--what statement if any can you make about the possibility of his contributing that DNA?
He has two bands with this probe. They are not in the same position as the bands in the sock and he is excluded as being a donor of the DNA from the sock.
Mr. Goldman also has two bands. They are not in the same position as the DNA from the sock and he is also excluded as being a donor of the DNA on the sock.
Finally, with regard to Nicole Brown, what statement if any can you make about her being the contributor of that DNA?
She has two bands. They are in similar positions to the bands from the sock, and she is not excluded.
Dr. Cotton, with respect to all of the testing conducted at your laboratory on the sock, is it then the case that as a result of all of these different genetic marker locations, that Nicole Brown matches the DNA found from that sock--found in that sock?
Are you aware, Dr. Cotton, of other testing conducted by any other laboratories on this sock?
That's four. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the afternoon. Please remember all of my admonitions to you; don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, and also, do not allow anybody to communicate with you. And we'll see you back here tomorrow morning at 9:00 o'clock. Dr. Cotton, you're excused. You are ordered back tomorrow morning, 8:45. All right. We'll stand in recess for about 10 minutes, and then we'll take up the other motions.
Based on all of the data, he is not.
Based on all of the information together, he cannot be definitively excluded, but he cannot be definitively included either. So the results regarding Mr. Goldberg and item 78 are inconclusive.
Five genetic markers and 10 bands.
That is the case.